Stories about ACLU on WikiTribune – WikiTribunehttps://www.wikitribune.com
Come collaborate with us, because facts really do matterFri, 22 Feb 2019 11:57:40 +0000en-GBhourly1Fact check: Hillary Clinton’s claim on children separated from parents at US borderhttps://www.wikitribune.com/article/84963/?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=ACLU&pk_campaign=RSS&pk_kwd=ACLU&pk_source=RSS&pk_medium=RSS&pk_content=ACLU
https://www.wikitribune.com/article/84963/?talkThu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:08 +0000https://www.wikitribune.com/?post_type=stories&p=84963Hillary Clinton wrote a tweet in which she claimed that 565 children are still separated from their parents, apparently referring to minors from migrant families who were split at the U.S. borders.

It’s been three weeks since the deadline for the administration to reunify families it separated at the border. Today, 565 children are still reportedly separated from their parents. #FamiliesBelongTogether

Claim:

565 children are still reportedly separated from their parents.

Fact check:

True (as of 12.00 pm ET on August 16, 2018).

The American Civil Liberties Union, who have filed legal proceedings on this matter, told WikiTribune that “there have been court-ordered status reporters through the case proceedings so this is based on the most recent one [from 12.00 pm ET on August 16, 2018]. The next one will be filed tonight at 6pm ET [August 23].”

]]>https://www.wikitribune.com/article/84963/feed/5Facial recognition software ‘primed for abuse’, say campaignershttps://www.wikitribune.com/article/76189/?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=ACLU&pk_campaign=RSS&pk_kwd=ACLU&pk_source=RSS&pk_medium=RSS&pk_content=ACLU
https://www.wikitribune.com/article/76189/?talkTue, 26 Jun 2018 10:12:37 +0000https://www.wikitribune.com/?post_type=stories&p=76189Facial recognition technology (FRT) – which identifies people from a digital or video image – is becoming controversial. Recent progress has led to law enforcement agencies around the world adopting FRT, but resistance is mounting from civil liberties campaigners. This page sets out the basics of the debate surrounding government use of facial recognition software. […]]]>

Facial recognition technology (FRT) – which identifies people from a digital or video image – is becoming controversial. Recent progress has led to law enforcement agencies around the world adopting FRT, but resistance is mounting from civil liberties campaigners.

This page sets out the basics of the debate surrounding government use of facial recognition software. To develop WikiTribune’s original reporting on this issue, help develop the draft story here.

In the U.S., the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a long-running campaign against the systematic use of facial recognition software by law enforcement, and has particularly targeted Amazon’s sales of its Rekognition software.

On June 18, the ACLU delivered a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, supported by a petition with 150,000 signatures, arguing its software is “primed for abuse in the hands of governments.”

Following this, Amazon employees wrote to Bezos on June 21 calling on him to stop selling the technology. Amazon shareholders had already sent Bezos a letter, on June 15, citing concerns over the potential use of the software and and knock-on effects for the company’s share price.

Amazon issued a response to the ACLU’s earlier concerns on June 1, stating that there had been no reported abuse of the technology by law enforcement.

“[W]e believe it is the wrong approach to impose a ban on promising new technologies because they might be used by bad actors for nefarious purposes in the future,” Amazon argued. “The world would be a very different place if we had restricted people from buying computers because it was possible to use that computer to do harm.”

Meanwhile in the UK, human rights group Liberty is supporting a legal challenge to the widespread use of the technology by police departments.

Issues raised by these groups include potential infringements to privacy and freedom of expression, the technology’s inaccuracy and potential for discrimination, and the danger it could be sold to repressive governments to facilitate human rights abuses.

Which parts of this issue have been under-reported or need to be further analysed and explored?

]]>https://www.wikitribune.com/article/76189/feed/0Reluctant governments urged to rein in police use of facial recognition techhttps://www.wikitribune.com/article/76182/?utm_source=rss_feed&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=ACLU&pk_campaign=RSS&pk_kwd=ACLU&pk_source=RSS&pk_medium=RSS&pk_content=ACLU
https://www.wikitribune.com/article/76182/?talkTue, 26 Jun 2018 10:10:14 +0000https://www.wikitribune.com/?post_type=stories&p=76182Civil liberties groups are warning police use of facial recognition technology (FRT) is “out of control,” but despite well-documented problems with accuracy and discrimination, regulators appear reluctant to rein it in. In the United States, federal law enforcement agencies have access to pictures, via driving license records and ID photos of around 117 million adults, […]]]>

Civil liberties groups are warning police use of facial recognition technology (FRT) is “out of control,” but despite well-documented problems with accuracy and discrimination, regulators appear reluctant to rein it in.

In the United States, federal law enforcement agencies have access to pictures, via driving license records and ID photos of around 117 million adults, according to the Center for Privacy and Technology, based at Georgetown University.

In a study released in 2016, the center found that enforcement agencies have access to these records based on their ability to use FRT to assist with policing. The same study showed FRT was being employed with little regulation or oversight.

This report “comes the closest to giving an overall understanding of how widespread this technology is,” said Clare Garvie, one of it authors, “but it’s constrained in that we surveyed a little over a hundred law enforcement agencies, and there are over 18,000 in the United States.

“The deployment is probably more widespread and probably more advanced than we’re even aware of.”

Growing part of everyday life

People are increasingly interacting with FRT in everyday life. Social media feeds identify people to tag in pictures; smartphones group photos by subject.

The benefits of using this technology for law enforcement are immense. A huge amount of personnel hours can be saved if, instead of having people trawl through CCTV footage looking for a known suspect, the video can be automatically checked for a suspect’s face.

Many developers say these issues are being addressed and that the technology has become more accurate. Following a software update released on June 26, Microsoft said it had greatly expanded and diversified the database on which its FRT is based. The company said it reduced error rates for men and women with darker skin by up to 20 times.

However, in an article for TechCrunch on June 25, Brian Brackeen, CEO of FRT developer Kairos, said the technology is “not ready” to be used by police.

Brackeen went further, outlining how FRT has been used by authoritarian governments such as China, and arguing that government use constitutes “an extraordinary invasion of the privacy of all citizens,” as it relies on their having access to so much individual data already.

Moving in a regulatory vacuum

Despite these widely acknowledged issues, developers and customers see massive space for business growth for this technology. Axon, one of the biggest suppliers of police body-cameras and Tasers in the United States and UK, announced in April it’s exploring how to use AI tools including FRT in its body-cameras to “increase police efficiency and efficacy.”

“That’s an incredibly dangerous combination,” said Garvie. ”What if this technology makes a mistake? All of a sudden we have as the final arbiter a flawed technology [and] an officer who has a moment to decide whether or not to draw his weapon and act with potentially lethal force.”

In the United States and the UK, critics argue the root of their concern is a shortage of appropriate government oversight.

“The legislature hasn’t caught up,” said Garvie. “It’s being deployed faster than the legislatures are passing laws to address it.”

Megan Goulding, a lawyer at UK human rights group Liberty, told WikiTribune that FRT is effectively being used “lawlessly” in the UK.

“That seems to be a conscious decision by the government because they’ve also made statements that decisions to deploy the technology are operational choices for police forces,” said Goulding.

Freedom of Information requests reveal that several UK police forces have been using FRT, including South Wales, Leicestershire and Humberside. London’s Metropolitan Police began an expanded trial of the technology on June 29, while on June 28 the government announced it would begin using FRT for border controls.

Calls for oversight gain momentum

On June 28, the UK Home Office delivered a “biometric strategy” paper, addressing police use of FRT.

The paper took four years to prepare and did not address the concerns of a parliamentary committee, which complained that IT systems used by police forces are not technically capable of deleting images of innocent people. This means their use of FRT does not meet standards regarding fingerprinting and DNA records.

In the United States, a 206 report from the Center for Privacy and Technology outlined a recommended regulatory framework that would address concerns of most civil liberties advocates. This has been used for consultation in Maryland, according to Garvie, but not yet adopted by federal lawmakers.

With progress stagnating in terms of advancing regulations, campaigners are looking for more direct action.

Liberty is supporting a legal challenge to the use of FRT by police by arguing it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights protection of the rights to privacy, free assembly and expression, as well as protections against discrimination.

Those concerns echo the fears of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has been campaigning since early 2016 against the systematic use of facial recognition software by law enforcement.

Recently, this campaign has focused on Amazon’s sale of its Rekognition FRT. The ACLU says the online retailer has been heavily marketing to government agencies.

On June 18, the ACLU delivered a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, supported by a petition with 150,000 signatures, arguing the company’s software is “primed for abuse in the hands of governments.”

Following this, Amazon employees wrote to Bezos on June 21 calling on him to stop selling the technology. Amazon shareholders had already sent Bezos a letter, on June 15, citing concerns over the potential use of the software and and knock-on effects for the company’s share price.

Amazon issued a response to the ACLU’s earlier concerns on June 1, stating there had been no reported abuse of the technology by law enforcement.

“[We] believe it is the wrong approach to impose a ban on promising new technologies because they might be used by bad actors for nefarious purposes in the future,” Amazon argued. “The world would be a very different place if we had restricted people from buying computers because it was possible to use that computer to do harm.”

While some observers argue the the technology could be used in cases of repression, few are calling for the outright ban Amazon cited in its statemement.

“Legislation is necessary to curtail certain uses of the technology and also fundamental misunderstandings as to how accurate the technology is,” said Garvie, whose work acknowledges that “police use of facial recognition is inevitable.”

“A lot of these systems have been put in place without formal notice to the public,” said Garvie. This means there has not yet been the type of public pressure and legislative scrutiny FRT deserves, she said.